Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[Todash]

I guess what makes me most upset about the issue at hand is the attitude that the second amendment is viewed as a privilege rather than a right, the lack of honesty about what is being considered. and discussion on how many times when guns have saved lives.

All rights have limits. We have freedom of speech, but that does not extend to making threats of violence, being slanderous or libelous, or using words to create a dangerous situation (i.e., shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater or "Bomb!" in an airport).

What makes those limits? The rights of other people. We need to define those boundaries for the Second Amendment; it's as simple as that. OF COURSE there are going to be people who think the limits should be extreme. There are also those people who think the limits should be nonexistent. The mere existence of those people, and the volume at which they speak, does not really signify anything in and of itself.

In your argument, you appeal to emotion (the mall shooter scenario). But the facts are--statistics show--that a heavily armed society is a dangerous society, overall. Yes, guns have saved lives. But not nearly so many as the lack of guns does.

However. It is not my intent to suggest that the Second Amendment be heavily restricted, as much as I would love to live in a society where I don't have to worry about all these gun owners, a small percentage of whom seem to not be very rational, who could be around me every second of every day. (Yes, some non-gun owners are irrational too, but what are they going to do if they get really mad, disable me with papercuts and run me over with their Mini Coopers?)

Limits are rational. Limits are sane. And rights are only yours to the extent that they do not impede another's. My right to know that I am sending my child to a house with a resident who is currently in possession of a handgun which may or may not be properly secured is, yes, more important than your right to be secretly armed. The people's right to know that that gun you bought three years ago is still in your possession and that you are still mentally and physically capable of using it properly is more important than your right to sell that gun or give it away to whomever you want. Our right to know that you have had the proper training and were determined capable of correctly using a gun in the first place is more important than your right to absolute medical privacy. Why is that? Because of the sheer number of people who are killed, accidentally and intentionally, by guns in this country every year.

You want guns? That's fine. I want some assurance that:

1. You have some valid reason for wanting it. Self-protection, collecting, it's part of your job, hunting, target shooting ... something.
2. You don't buy more guns than are reasonable for one person/family to own. Illegal guns were generally legal at one time. They got into the black market somehow.
3. You don't have health issues that would make it dangerous for you to own a gun.
4. You didn't get to walk in somewhere right after you lost your job and are furious with your former coworkers and walk out with a gun.
5. Every gun you have is registered, just like a car would be.
6. You have had the proper training, just like you have to have to drive a car.
7. Every transfer of a weapon is accompanied by title, just as with a car.
8. Every few years you have to re-certify that you are capable of using your guns, just as with driving.
9. You do not own weaponry sufficient to conduct a small-scale war.

Per the Constitution of the United States, it is indeed your right to bear arms. But every single right in the Constitution and its amendments must be viewed through the filter of the Preamble and thus must not materially impact the rights of the remaining citizenry to justice, domestic tranquility, general welfare, and all the other blessings of liberty.

[atomicinchworm]

I actually hate the argument for guns that mention cars or alcohol. Cars have many uses in our society, and frankly the same could be argued for alcohol. Alcohol deaths via cars are down actually, because of strict law enforcement and harsh sentences for drunk driving.

Guns have one purpose, and were developed for one purpose, to kill better.

That is it.

In many places, you can't hunt with more than a four or so round clip. It is illegal to do so. Why would you need more than that to protect your home? Most of the time a warning shot will do.

As to your situation, exzel, based on my current experience with guns, I would choose the cell phone. Basic gun handling training is not the same as combat training. While people do save other people with Conceal and Carry, most of the time they don't. You shoot and miss, or, god forbid, you shoot and hit an innocent bystander. It's why you hear about cops in shoot outs unloading clips and clips of ammo and missing the bad guy. Why would I, untrained and unfamiliar, want to risk making the situation worse?

The people who want rounds and round of ammo I think, have this fantasy in their heads of saving the day or being the protector. Do you know what is also a good deterrent for people wanting to break into your home? Having a large dog and advertising the fact. I would say that having a big dog is much more effective in general, because it prevents the event from even happening at all. Besides, statistically, your kid is more likely to shoot themselves in the head with a gun in the home than be killed by even an untrained and unsocialized and intact large dog. /shrug. I've got to admit, I'm more comfortable with having a big dog than having a gun in the home.

[exzel]

Are you being serious here? You can only think of THREE?

You need to read this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

And this one. Because I'm guessing when you say three you are only talking about publicized mass shootings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2325706.html

Oh, and you mentioned car deaths? For the second time I am going to post this little beauty of an article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-by-2015.html

Thanks for the links. I try to read as much as I can on the subject... from both sides.

We already know the HuffPo has an agenda, akin to me posting stories from the NRA, methinks. Deaths by violent acts involving guns hovers right around 10,000 in the US, not 30,000. And as I previously noted, one can extrapolate (since we seemingly don’t wish as a nation for some unknown reason to report statistics on lives saved) that guns save more lives than cost in lives

And why not hold up Chicago as a model for strict gun control? It’s one of the, if not the most, strictest areas in the country when it comes to gun laws. They should be a shining example of its effectiveness, right? Unfortunately their population amounts to less than 1% of the US population, yet comprises over 5% of deaths caused by gun violence. Darn statistics!

So Bloomberg predicts deaths by firearms outpacing deaths by firearms by 2015? I doubt it, especially with higher federal mileage requirements, where the most feasible way to achieve it would be to make cars lighter and unsafe. Unless perhaps they are factoring in stricter gun laws, then I would agree gun deaths would rise dramatically. Regardless, does that mean since deaths by automobiles currently outpace guns, you would favor putting restrictions now on how fast cars could go right now… to say 35 MPH? And interesting to note though that the drop in (non-suicidal & non-accident) gun deaths from the article attributes it to less violence from drug trafficking, more people incarcerated, and more police crackdowns on illegal firearms. Nothing to do with stricter gun control laws.

And right now firearm deaths fall in as number 7 in the list of preventable causes of death in the nation. Just wondering, wouldn’t our efforts better be served concerning ourselves with 1 through 6 at the current time?
http://www.healthaliciousness.com/bl...s_of_death.png


(please note: my goal in this here is simply to put things out there that most probably won’t hear about from our regular agenda driven news sources about the gun topic, so hopefully people can make their own informed judgement… and of course not to allow our rights under the constitution to be trampled on and ignored by a select few in power).

[exzel]

You want guns? That's fine. I want some assurance that:

1. You have some valid reason for wanting it. Self-protection, collecting, it's part of your job, hunting, target shooting ... something.
2. You don't buy more guns than are reasonable for one person/family to own. Illegal guns were generally legal at one time. They got into the black market somehow.
3. You don't have health issues that would make it dangerous for you to own a gun.
4. You didn't get to walk in somewhere right after you lost your job and are furious with your former coworkers and walk out with a gun.
5. Every gun you have is registered, just like a car would be.
6. You have had the proper training, just like you have to have to drive a car.
7. Every transfer of a weapon is accompanied by title, just as with a car.
8. Every few years you have to re-certify that you are capable of using your guns, just as with driving.
9. You do not own weaponry sufficient to conduct a small-scale war.

You want guns? That's fine. I want some assurance that:
1. You have some valid reason for wanting it. Self-protection, collecting, it's part of your job, hunting, target shooting ... something.
2. You don't buy more guns than are reasonable for one person/family to own. Illegal guns were generally legal at one time. They got into the black market somehow.
3. You don't have health issues that would make it dangerous for you to own a gun.
4. You didn't get to walk in somewhere right after you lost your job and are furious with your former coworkers and walk out with a gun.
5. Every gun you have is registered, just like a car would be.
6. You have had the proper training, just like you have to have to drive a car.
7. Every transfer of a weapon is accompanied by title, just as with a car.
8. Every few years you have to re-certify that you are capable of using your guns, just as with driving.
9. You do not own weaponry sufficient to conduct a small-scale war.


Let’s say I agree with that. Would you then agree with me that we limit the sale of alcohol, and that I want assurances that you cannot purchase alcohol if:

• You’ve ever had a DUI.
• You’ve ever had a domestic dispute involving police where alcohol was involved.
• You’ve never been drunk in public.
• You’ve never consumed alcohol to excess.

[hossenpepper]

We don't need gun control, we need stupidity control.

Make it a requirement to have over a 125 IQ to purchase/own a gun of any kind.

That would eliminate most members of the NRA and about 95% of the population.

[exzel]

In many places, you can't hunt with more than a four or so round clip. It is illegal to do so. Why would you need more than that to protect your home? Most of the time a warning shot will do.

A warning shot? Shoot to mame? Then you should not be shooting at all as your life would not be in danger.

[quote]As to your situation, exzel, based on my current experience with guns, I would choose the cell phone. [/quote[
Then I commend you. But what is the aveage response time from the police, and what is the average length of time for killings?

Basic gun handling training is not the same as combat training. While people do save other people with Conceal and Carry, most of the time they don't. You shoot and miss, or, god forbid, you shoot and hit an innocent bystander. It's why you hear about cops in shoot outs unloading clips and clips of ammo and missing the bad guy. Why would I, untrained and unfamiliar, want to risk making the situation worse?

I haven't read many instances of that, but I could be wrong. And I belive the distance where you would use a gun in self defense is very small, making the chances of missing minimal. And in your example about cops, wouldn't that make for an argument for the use of high capacity magazines for self defense purposes?

The people who want rounds and round of ammo I think, have this fantasy in their heads of saving the day or being the protector. Do you know what is also a good deterrent for people wanting to break into your home? Having a large dog and advertising the fact. I would say that having a big dog is much more effective in general, because it prevents the event from even happening at all. Besides, statistically, your kid is more likely to shoot themselves in the head with a gun in the home than be killed by even an untrained and unsocialized and intact large dog. /shrug. I've got to admit, I'm more comfortable with having a big dog than having a gun in the home.

Perhaps, but we can't all have, nor would we be comfortable with large untrained and unsocialized dogs, especially around children. Personally, I'm more comfortable with a gun.

Again, we seem to forget it a "right" under our constitution.

[Moderator]

Let's keep this in context then:

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even when the Supreme Court upheld the rights of individuals to possess firearms in 2008 and 2010, though, it listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In the ruling, Justice Scalia wrote this:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[exzel]

Let's keep this in context then:

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even when the Supreme Court upheld the rights of individuals to possess firearms in 2008 and 2010, though, it listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In the ruling, Justice Scalia wrote this:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Very good post Ms. Mod. I’m more familiar with the 2008 decision of District of Columbia vs Heller than the 2010 ruling of (McDonald vs Chicago I presume).

I agree with boundaries. It’s taking things too far, either way, that bothers me. And I also agree that if one is unwilling to be called upon in a time of need and execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; they aren’t afforded the right under the constitution.

[atomicinchworm]

I would never personally have an untrained or unsocialized dog; I was simply looking at the three things that statistically indicates a dog has potential to be a killer (ie intact, untrained and unsocialized).

It is absolutely fact that significantly more kids shoot themselves in the head than get killed by dogs. I think 27 people were killed by dogs last year and I believe it was close to a thousand people accidentally shot and killed themselves. Which is the statistically the more deadly thing? The object you can control or the animal that can think and react for itself?

The statistics are pretty clear. I won't have a gun, but I will have a big dog. But to each his own.

/shrug

[Shasta]

Thanks for the links. I try to read as much as I can on the subject... from both sides.

We already know the HuffPo has an agenda, akin to me posting stories from the NRA, methinks. Deaths by violent acts involving guns hovers right around 10,000 in the US, not 30,000. And as I previously noted, one can extrapolate (since we seemingly don’t wish as a nation for some unknown reason to report statistics on lives saved) that guns save more lives than cost in lives

And why not hold up Chicago as a model for strict gun control? It’s one of the, if not the most, strictest areas in the country when it comes to gun laws. They should be a shining example of its effectiveness, right? Unfortunately their population amounts to less than 1% of the US population, yet comprises over 5% of deaths caused by gun violence. Darn statistics!

So Bloomberg predicts deaths by firearms outpacing deaths by firearms by 2015? I doubt it, especially with higher federal mileage requirements, where the most feasible way to achieve it would be to make cars lighter and unsafe. Unless perhaps they are factoring in stricter gun laws, then I would agree gun deaths would rise dramatically. Regardless, does that mean since deaths by automobiles currently outpace guns, you would favor putting restrictions now on how fast cars could go right now… to say 35 MPH? And interesting to note though that the drop in (non-suicidal & non-accident) gun deaths from the article attributes it to less violence from drug trafficking, more people incarcerated, and more police crackdowns on illegal firearms. Nothing to do with stricter gun control laws.

And right now firearm deaths fall in as number 7 in the list of preventable causes of death in the nation. Just wondering, wouldn’t our efforts better be served concerning ourselves with 1 through 6 at the current time?
http://www.healthaliciousness.com/bl...s_of_death.png


(please note: my goal in this here is simply to put things out there that most probably won’t hear about from our regular agenda driven news sources about the gun topic, so hopefully people can make their own informed judgement… and of course not to allow our rights under the constitution to be trampled on and ignored by a select few in power).

I agree with you - I like to know all sides as well. But the fact is, sides or not, there is something very wrong in this county. I don't think anyone at all is saying that gun control is going to solve it all. And I want to make myself VERY clear - I am not a gun owner but I intended to be. I ended up changing my mind (thanks to many people on this board, including Todash and many other people) but I have no issue with guns. I do have 100% issue with the fact that anyone can walk in and get a gun at gun show and that people can buy a huge amount of rounds. These are things that are so easy to change and don't infrigne on anyone.

I have also said many times that we need to work on gun owner education in this country. In CA, which doesn't have lax gun laws by any means, you have to take a test. Well let me tell you, a five year old could probably pass that test. If we move our culture into one of education we'd likely be better off.

And Chicago - yes. There are a lot of gun murders. But how easy is it for a criminal to go to a gun show in another state bring the guns into Chicago? Too easy I would guess.

And gun deaths being preventable - why shouldn't we focus on ALL preventable deaths?